Tea Party to Scott Brown: Good luck with that election, buddy

posted at 9:25 am on October 7, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

He may have been the first major victory of the Tea Party on a national level, but Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown may wind up looking a bit lonely in that regard has he prepares to run for his first full term in the upper chamber. The Daily Caller is reporting that Tea Party activists are feeling rather lukewarm toward Brown at best.

…Scott Brown was the tea party movement’s first electoral victory. But now that he’s up for re-election for a full six-year term in 2012, tea party activists tell The Daily Caller they’re not going to bother putting together the same operation that swept him into office the first time.

That’s not to say tea partiers will not vote for Brown, or even put up much of an effort to oppose him since a serious primary challenger has yet to be found. The movement has matured into realizing that sometimes the “least of two evils” — as one activist put it — is necessary in a traditionally blue state like Massachusetts.

But don’t expect tea partiers to be happy about it.

“Scott Brown has disappointed us a few times,” Carlos Hernandez, state coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots, told TheDC. “So are we going to go out there and hold signs for him everyday? I don’t think so.”

The “disappointments” by Scott Brown were not only evident, but predicted long before he was sworn in to office. Many of the same people who were celebrating the stunning victory during the 2010 congressional races began falling out of love with the upstart as soon as he began voting like a … Massachusetts Republican. And let’s be realistic here. We grow some pretty fluffy RINOs here in New York, but we don’t hold a candle to the Bay State. I’m fairly sure that all nine of the registered Republicans in Boston are pro-choice, among other things.

But Brown knows his own state and clearly can sense which way the wind is blowing. He had every intention of being competitive in this race, and he’s less concerned with impressing conservatives in Alabama than he is with the independents back home who he will need to vote for him next year. The good news in this is that there doesn’t seem to be any momentum to getting a primary challenge going against him. It will be hard enough sending Scott back for a full term, even if he is the most popular politician in the state. And while he’s at it, he might want to avoid any more references to Elizabeth Warren getting naked.

So independents are really conservatives who voted for Obama?” Makes a lot of sense.

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 10:45 AM

Independents voted for NOT Bush remember TARP in Sept 2008? Remember the anger at George W Bush? Obama ran against George W Bush, he was the anti Bush candidate or did you forget the media pushing the sound bite that John McCain was George W Bush’s 3rd term? The anger at Obama for passing Porkulus, the auto bailouts, TARP 2, got Scott Brown elected to Ted Kennedy’s legacy seat, in bluest Massachusetts. That’s how angry Independents were at Obama turning out to be George W Bush on Steroids. “It’s the spending stupid” Independents took Obama at his word. Remember when Obama claimed he would half the federal deficit? Remember when Obama called what George W Bush did racking up 4 trillion dollars in 8 years, stealing from our children? What happened after Obama was elected, he passed Porkulus and TARP 2 more auto bailouts. The Independents swung wide back to the right in the Mid Term elections. I don’t think Obama can get the Independent vote back – they plain don’t trust him.

The republicans think now, that the Independents will vote for anyone but Obama. The way I see it given that kind of jaded reasoning – the Independents may stay home or vote a third party interest like the Libertarian ticket. Independents are not invested in the republican party – we don’t trust either party, and divided government is just fine with us.

Scott Brown is a RINO of the first water. Massachusetts gets a progressive in the end either way they vote.

I stated above, just what have the republicans done since the mid term elections to deserve the U.S. Senate majority back?

What I’m trying to say is that their overtly movement tactics don’t appeal to Massachusetts conservatives as well as they would say in Iowa. This is because as a whole Massachusetts is one of the most well educated state, so the environment of political discourse is very different. You would need to be more subtle than the Tea Party to win over conservatives and independents in Mass.

He’ll only go MORE RINO in a six year term. He’ll be a complete embarrassment.

HondaV65 on October 7, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Good for you, my brother HondaV65.

I am content with letting Scott Brown and his merry band of RINOs stew in their own juice.

However, I very well may co-opt your strategy to donate to Obama if Romney is the GOP nominee.

Since the GOP Establishment seem to have a preference for left-tilting candidates, why not go all the way? Heck, I am sure to get more respect from the RINOs as an Obama-supporting kook than a conservative in the party base.

Dang, I never thought there would be a scenario that would have me embrace the GOP over the Tea Party until you said that. Eeck!

Cindy Munford on October 7, 2011 at 12:21 PM

Lubbock GOP is pretty conservative. Right now they’re considering stating a ‘walk for freedom or something’ from Lubbock to Austin. Because I’m basically conservative and walk EVERYWHERE The GOP head wants me to be part of it if it takes place. Husband agrees.
I’m in.

I understand. I’m active in the Lubbock County GOP-but the Luubbock County Tea Party has been over-run by Ronulans-most of whom are your typical Ronulan.
No thanks.

annoyinglittletwerp on October 7, 2011 at 12:17 PM

Yeah Texas’s Ron Paul fetish is getting out of hand. I have a good friend in Texas who now constantly talks about how great Ron Paul is in every conversation. Ugh.

Overall I’m not a huge fan of messiah politics, from either party. The Tea Party needs to channel pragmatics a little more too. They started off strong because they channeled the concerns that every responsible household had, but now they are being led by a bunch of sloganeering twits.

How about all you “moderate” RINO types castigating the teaparty, instead pony up the bucks and the volunteers for your RINO candidates, and the teaparty supports the conservative candidates we like?

Brown got a lot of support from the teaparties around the nation, and he turned out to be a RINO. We got him elected the first time, now he’s your problem “moderates”, time to ante up and get him reelected.

You can say “it’s the best we can do here”, and perhaps that’s true. But when these RINOs stab the GOP in the back on a vote – they don’t get the blame, the party as a whole gets the blame, they give bipartisan cover for the democrat progressives. They harm the brand, which costs us votes in the long run.

The republican party is supposed to be the conservative party, the democrat party the liberal party. When you have liberal republicans, they vote liberal on the important votes. When you have conservative democrats aka blue dogs, they vote liberal on the important votes. The days where conservatives are going to bend over backwards to support someone just because they have a (R) after their names is done.

Give the people a clear choice, and let them make it – conservative or leftist – and make them live with it. The real goal of the teaparty is to reforge the GOP into an explicit and unapologetically conservative organization. Whoever has a problem with that, is free to join the other side.

My husband’s been trying to convert one of them. He’s keeping his new friend away from the little woman because he know the first thing I’ll ask the guy is about Ron Paul’s views on Israel/endorsements my stormfront and the IHR.

Give the people a clear choice, and let them make it – conservative or leftist – and make them live with it. The real goal of the teaparty is to reforge the GOP into an explicit and unapologetically conservative organization. Whoever has a problem with that, is free to join the other side.

Rebar on October 7, 2011 at 12:30 PM

What? You mean like Sean Bielat? Jeff Perry? Bill Hudak? and the dozens of other Massachusetts conservatives who lost in 2010.

Read the whole thread. Tired of your fictitious blather. Conservatives run and have been running in Mass for year. They just lose. Its numbers. Not a RINO or establishment conspiracy.

Some people actually have to live here. The choice isnt your idealistic dream or a marxist sh*thole. Well take incremental victories.

A Republican senator with a 74% ACU rating, sitting in Ted Kennedy’ seat, and beating a doctrinaire neo-marixist is good enough for most conservatives with half a brain.

There’s nothing pseudointellectual and elitist about having a decent education.

haner on October 7, 2011 at 12:20 PM

As one would expect, you’ve completely missed the point and have drawn totally unwarranted conclusions. Check again and you’ll find that there was no endorsement of either O’Donnell, Angle, Miller or Bachmann. Furthermore, no one even implied that there is anything wrong with a “decent education” . . . the issue is how you apply it to the real physical world.

If the republicans don’t come away with some skin in this fight or don’t have a scalp to show for their efforts -as in Eric Holder stepping down or being indited, don’t count on the Independents being all ginned up for republicans. Independents like the TEA party movement and their message of fiscal conservatism. It’s the spending, and if the republican establishment think they can run on anyone but not Obama and win – they are deluding themselves. Obama and the progressives are going to throw everything at the republican candidate- they have nothing to lose. They also have plenty to work with because since the republican took back the house, they haven’t made any progress in slowing government spending down. In fact they voted to raise the debt ceiling by trillions more.

Can Obama run as a born again fiscal deficit hawk? No not this time around, but if the republicans are putting up Obama lite to run against Obama they aren’t giving Independents a reason to vote republican, especially when they want to vote conservative. I don’t see myself voting for Ron Paul on a Libertarian ticket, but I can see myself voting Libertarian given the alternatives. When the only thing on the 2012 menu is Liberal Republican or Liberal Democrat.

Top down political change is an anomaly. Brown’s election was a perfect storm of events that allowed an opportunity that the tea party capitalized upon.

The weather in Mass. Is clearer now, and the same opportunity is not there. In my opinion, Brown needs to capture votes to the left of the tea party (he doesn’t need to chase their vote because he already has them over Warren).

The tea party in MA needs to concentrate on local and state elections to create a more favorable political climate for candidates with a conservative ideology. If the tea party can capture more local offices and demonstrate locally that conservative policies work, they can create a base of viable candidate to draw from when opportunity arises. If citizens can experience the benefits of a conservative government first hand, they will be more receptive to conservative candidates in the future.

Brown was a short term game and gain for the tea party. Focusing on the long term game now will give the tea party in Ma a better ROI and possibly deliver long term deep and wide support for it’s principles.

The tea party got lucky with Brown and by extension we did too. Now they need to build a base of like minded office holders to have real long term success rather than just lucky breaks now and then.

Will you have to live with Elizabeth Warren as your senator for the next 30 years? Will your state not have one single Republican official in Congress or in a state constitutional office if elected?

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Awww… now you are making me cry (sniffle)… Psych!

Here is a not-so-brand-new idea. If Mass. wants moonbat crazies like Warren, then so be it. Similar to Delaware preferring Coons.

Allow Mass. to carry on in their liberal la-la land until another golden opportunity like what was presented to Scott Brown comes again… maybe in 5 years or less if the Obama train continues.

But when that opportunity comes and Tea partiers/conservatives work to elect a supposed conservative, leave that guy/gal be and let him/her serve as an unrepentant conservative.

You might very well be surprised to find out that DeMint-type conservatism works everywhere it is tried.

You talk of other conservatives losing in 2010? Have you ever thought of linking that to the Scott Brown “disappointment”? After conservatives worked off their butts to elect him, he turned around and stabbed them. Why should they bother repeating the process?

You might very well be surprised to find out that DeMint-type conservatism works everywhere it is tried.

You talk of other conservatives losing in 2010? Have you ever thought of linking that to the Scott Brown “disappointment”? After conservatives worked off their butts to elect him, he turned around and stabbed them. Why should they bother repeating the process?

TheRightMan on October 7, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Every single Republican in the Northeast is laughing at you right now.

The Republicans can run on repealing Obamacare but Mitt Romney the establishment republican favorite is tied to Obamacare, and he is not a conservative. Mitt can call himself whatever he wants. It doesn’t make it so.

I remember Al Gore insisting, he was his own man, in the lead up to the 2000 election- that worked so well, two of my friends who vote democrat, protest voted for Nader. I voted Bush.

The progressives are on the ropes it’s time to finish them off not elect another progressive of the republican brand in their place. The democrats are counting on a split in the republican party. The establishment republicans are not offering the Independents a reason to get excited to vote R. It took McCain picking Sarah Palin to get me excited about the republican ticket in 2008. It’s like the RINOS are going to keep running the same old pass on the American electorate, hoping we will fall for it again, and again. Hello? John McCain lost in 2008, the only reason he got close was a conservative was on the ticket with him.

Would these fools prefer Elizabeth Warren, a leftist in the obama mold? Scott Brown is as conservative as they’re gonna get in MA.
Use your brains people, getting 60- 70 % of what you want is still more than Zero.

The way I look at this is that a vote for a Republican isn’t good enough, people need to be turning cartwheels. Considering the choices I am being given on a national level (including the supposed “Tea Party” candidates”) barely civil is the best I can come up with.

I remember all of that, and more. What does that have to do with not supporting Brown…everything. Its the northeast. the people there know how far they can go to the right. I’ve been up there and I have a hard time believing how far to the left they are. Having written that, I also know that for the time being, Brown is the best we are going to get from Massachusetts. The choices are Brown or Warren. I prefer Brown.

This whole “tea party” candidate, or approved by “tea Party” people is an f**king joke!
Dick Armey runs a large tea party organization. Big party guys co-opted it. Here in south Texas, they now have a Hispanic Tea Party and are promoting the Dream Act, path to citizenship for illegals, mandated health care and the usual liberal agenda. They are getting attention from local media and have clueless people thinking the tea party as a whole is promoting the La Raza agenda. The local media is willingly helping them.

They didnt join there local MA Republican Committee when they were 21 like me. They didnt create a PAC in MA when they were 24 to elect local conservatives like me. They havent run phone banks in MA like me. They havent knocked on tens of thousands doors in MA like me. They havent studied the MA numbers like me. They havent fought the unions like me. They havent fought the academics like me. They havent been fighting leftists in MA for 20 years like me.

They didnt go to UMass like me. They didnt go to law school in Boston like me. They didnt practice law in Boston like me.

No, they are spoiled amateurs, rookies and idiots, whose only answer to every question, is “run real conservatives they win ever time!” or “its all a RINO and establishment conspiracy”.

Brains arent complex enough to grasp the gravity of the situation and the electoral realities of the present demographics. This is why we laugh. Because they are so f*cking stupid.

Hey, maybe we can ask Sharon Angle or Ken Buck to move to Massachusetts so we can primary Scott Brown and have a true conservative run against Elizabeth Warren. The Tea Party continues to show how unreasonable they can be. Very unfortunate.

But Brown knows his own state and clearly can sense which way the wind is blowing. He had every intention of being competitive in this race, and he’s less concerned with impressing conservatives in Alabama than he is with the independents back home who he will need to vote for him next year.

Brown utilized the fact the Kennedy machine was a symbol of the enemy to the national tea party, and so collected a lot of help, not just from tea party, but from those who wished to beat the machine. A lot of help. Media time, money, paper pushing. I don’t think it was genius. He declared, and it opened the mother lode

Now he is defending his own machine, and machines are built of those with something to lose, or more to gain. Heh. Meanwhile its a thanks guys, it was a big help.

Nonetheless, the tea party bested the machine and that is special. Contrast that to the Chicago machine which is grinding that locale like a transformers movie.

The tea party got lucky with Brown and by extension we did too. Now they need to build a base of like minded office holders to have real long term success rather than just lucky breaks now and then.
Jason Coleman on October 7, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Normally I would say that requires mass migration, but it is possible the coming international financial crash will cause even liberal voters to try drastic change locally. Municipal bankrupties could be the trigger

Thank all of the states that want their primary, or caucus, to be nationally important. I’d call them attention w____, but that’s not nice in mixed company unless a nutball is involved. If these things hadn’t gotten pushed forward, there would have been time for other candidates to enter the race at a time they all would get more attention from potential supporters.

Karl Rove and the Party elders were content to throw the election to Chris Coons (a self-described Marxist) to stick it to Christine O’Donnell. They helped the Dems to destroy her.

But all of a sudden, Elizabeth Warren is so ‘evil’ that we should do everything possible to stop her?

No dice.

TheRightMan on October 7, 2011 at 12:54 PM

Frankly even a cynic like I was surprised the Elitist Establishment was so powerful as to get that 10.7+% of voters that would otherwise have voted for O’Donnell to back Coons and another 6% to stay home. We must do everything, everywhere we can to oppose them and their RINOs, or it’ll certainly happen again.

a RINO in TX or OK or MO isn’t the same as a RINO in Illinois or MASS.
Quite biting off your nose to spite your face

annoyinglittletwerp on October 7, 2011 at 12:15 PM

and

The Brown election was a huge monkey wrench in the 2009 legislative agenda. He helped slow it to a crawl.

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Yeah, I’m glad that Brown derailed the agenda. But with the odds that the GOP will gain a majority in the Senate, Brown is useless. If he can stay in on his own, more power to him. He doesn’t need one red cent when across the land, there are Dems on the endangered list and conservative challengers that need support. Brown made his bed…

Going back to OK, I’m all for primarying the current batch in office. They need a little fire under their feet every election season to make sure they are sufficiently focusing on their right flank.

This is not cutting off my nose to spite my face, this is a purification process that needs to be repeated ever more, 1) with Senators, until the 17th Amendment is repealed and 2) with the House, until we get term limits.

I really hope Tea Party People will support Scott Brown. Would you rather have him in the Senate or an avowed Liberal Socialist Progressive. You know elections have consequences and so do big mouths professing purity.

This has probably been referenced before, but Brown rates a 74 percent from the ACU. Kerry and all 10 of Massachusett’s House reps got 0. Thats about as good as its going to get for the Republicans there.

“As you know, Tea Party Express worked hard to help get Sen. Scott Brown elected and his re-election and campaign against the progressive economic policies of Elizabeth Warren are important to us,” Callahan told TheDC. “There will, no doubt, be other races that we will get involved in, but they have not been announced at this time.”

I remember all of that, and more. What does that have to do with not supporting Brown…everything. Its the northeast. the people there know how far they can go to the right. I’ve been up there and I have a hard time believing how far to the left they are. Having written that, I also know that for the time being, Brown is the best we are going to get from Massachusetts. The choices are Brown or Warren. I prefer Brown.

cozmo on October 7, 2011 at 1:08 PM

When Independents are looking at the Republican party, they are looking at who is in control of the party, it’s not conservative republicans running the show, it’s just progressives wearing the (R) brand. Why would an Independent vote for progressivism- statism, if they want fiscal conservative policy?

The last election in the November 2010 almost wiped out all the white southern blue dog democrats, Why? They voted with the progressive leadership in the Democrat party, and shoved a big a government spending agenda down Independent’s throats. Obama ran as the anti Bush (remember how he spent?) candidate, the minute he was sworn in he turned into Bush on steroids. He racked up 4 trillion in 3 years. What did Independents do? They voted the blue dogs democrats out, because they were voting against their interest. Now the republican’s being led by their progressive wing are trying to do the same with their RINOs like Scott Brown – who voted with Obama. How many different ways can Independents say NO to progressivism? The Independents are not fickle, we want the federal government’s out of control spending to stop, not just slowed down, thank you so much Paul Ryan/ We want the budget balanced, and we want the federal deficit reduced – not increased.

Why has no one noticed that the Independents care about “Fiscal Policy” we are not social value voters. That’s the attraction. the TEA party holds for Independents. The progressive republican agenda not so much. Big Government is Big Government period, it doesn’t matter if it’s a republican or a democrat dishing it up.

“Brains arent complex enough to grasp the gravity of the situation and the electoral realities of the present demographics. This is why we laugh. Because they are so f*cking stupid.

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 1:11 PM”

Better yet, the brains of those in MA are the ones that aren’t complex enough to grasp the situation. Your brain isn’t complex
enough to realize your spinning your wheels, according to your
very own statement, you are that f*cking stupid. I mean if you
were doing so well, you wouldn’t have needed the Tea Party to
elect Brown in the first place. Goodluck with all that!

“Tea Party Patriots” are the dummies of the groups which appropriated the Tea Party label – nobody elected them as leaders, they appointed themselves.

I saw their spokespeople on business channels during the debt ceiling debates in Congress, and was embarrassed for them. No one expects lay people to be experts on financial issues but if you are going on television to represent your group, shouldn’t you have at least a nodding acquaintance with the subject matter? These people – one man and one woman on separate occasions – were just clueless. Stupid. It was sad.

This is the same group which withdrew from a Tea Party tour to protest Mitt Romney even being allowed to speak. Their pathetic little group of about 20, from two families, mainly, looked so funny making their statements to the press against the backdrop of empty park.

If they are disappointed in Scott Brown, wait until they get to know Elizabeth Warren.

I’m fairly sure that all nine of the registered Republicans in Boston are pro-choice, among other things.

Um, I’m a registered Republican from the suburbs of Boston. I’m also pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, a Tea Partier, and a member of the Federalist Society.

There are super-conservatives here in Massachusetts; we just don’t have any of our own in elected office. Personally, I would love it if a Michele Bachmann could be elected here, but that’s not going to happen. We will take the most conservative candidate that we can get, and that most conservative candidate is probably Scott Brown.

IMHO, the Senate election that conservatives in MA should focus on is the 2014 one against John Kerry. Why expend our efforts in unseating Scott Brown (and handing the thing to Elizabeth Warren?!) when we could kick out John Kerry?

The only part of any of your argument I would quibble with is that all of the blue dogs were not wiped out. There is a historical reason that name even exists, and not all of the people who subscribed to that have died out. That just supports the position I take. This country may be the Titanic headed towards the iceberg, but no matter how much we wish it to be so, we cannot turn this country on a dime, even a couple of cycles. Just look back, the TEA party has changed the argument from how slowly to raise spending to “what speed should we actually reduce spending”. A lot of the squishy middle is afraid of that and if we grasp for too much, too soon, we will miss the opportunity again. Just like the 80’s and just like the 90’s. I don’t want to miss this opportunity.

And Brown is the only republican that has a chance in Massachusetts even with a socialist as an opponent.

And Brown is the only republican that has a chance in Massachusetts even with a socialist as an opponent.

cozmo on October 7, 2011 at 3:02 PM

The republicans had a strong populist message in 2010 today not so much. Massachusetts has more registered democrats than republicans, that means that Brown needs to give the Independents a reason to vote for him – they did before because of PUMAS and the TEA Party. Now Brown thinks the way to retain his seat is to repel the TEA party and Independents, that align with the small limited government and fiscal conservative message.

It doesn’t make sense to me, because he thinks he can mine votes out of Warren’s demographic, and it’s not working. Brown can’t hold onto the republicans in Massachusetts and run left of Warren. Maybe if he was in some other geographic region than New England. He’s not occupying that sweet spot John McCain enjoyed, where voters would hold their nose and vote:) They are out numbered in Massachusetts.

If the Republicans are going to hold their seats, and add more they need a better strategy than the one being employed by Brown’s campaign team.

I have to admit though, I have heard that clip of him responding to someone saying there were no naked pictures of Elizabeth Warren out there….which Brown responded “Thank God”. That was an honest sincere response LOL!

There is certainly a good number of Kosling Democrats on this thread putting purity before getting control of the Senate. I would much rather have Mitch than Harry as Senate Majority Leader. How about you?

Mittster couldn’t even elect a handful of state senators, as governor, to sustain a veto in the legislature. Shortly afterward, Mittster decided to hand things over completely to the Dems and seek greener pastures in 2008. hence RomneyCare, gay marriage etc.

There is certainly a good number of Kosling Democrats on this thread putting purity before getting control of the Senate. I would much rather have Mitch than Harry as Senate Majority Leader. How about you?

Punchenko on October 7, 2011 at 3:34 PM

Depends. Which Mitch are we gonna get, exactly? The Mitch who thinks Progressive ideas are stupid and destructive, and who stays up at night thinking of ways to derail them??

Or would we be getting the Mitch who thinks that the way to win is to make “the best deal” that he can make with Harry and the rest of the Dems?

Over the last year, I’ve seen more deals made than fights picked . . .

An toaster strudel that votes Republican 50% of the time would be WAY BETTER than E. Warren who the left absolutely adores. We don’t need someone as deranged and clearly mentally unstable like E. Warren in the United States Senate. Period.

A Republican senator with a 74% ACU rating, sitting in Ted Kennedy’ seat, and beating a doctrinaire neo-marixist is good enough for most conservatives with half a brain.

swamp_yankee on October 7, 2011 at 12:37 PM

Exactly.

I wasn’t aware that “The Tea Party” was this monolithic organization with a Board of Directors or something which would dictate which candidates it members must or must not support.

Assuming, as I do, that most self-described “Tea Party” folk are advocating a philosophy of government and set of positions on issues—i.e that most of them have a good deal more than half a brain—I would assume that they will exercise their individual judgment and support the candidates in every race who come closest to “Tea Party” positions.

The smarter ones will also factor in “electability,” a difficult term to define, but essential nonetheless.

I’m not up there, but I haven’t seen where Brown is running to the left of Warren on anything. He is employing the reverse tactic of the democrats when they got the blue dogs elected. Blue enough to win in a blue state. In relation to Warren, it makes him the lesser of two evils for moderate democrats and middle of the road independents.

First, I want to thank swamp_yankee for doing a lot of great work on this thread. I’m going to copy a few posts I made in Headlines:

Its hard to care who wins because its hard to pinpoint any great difference between the two.

sharrukin on October 3, 2011 at 12:02 AM

You are out of your mind.

I don’t think you grasp Massachusetts politics. I don’t believe in settling, and I’ve not liked several of Scott Brown’s votes.

Here’s the thing: When I contact his office, he gets back to me and explains himself and what he’s thinking. Without him, I don’t even have that option. Scott Brown’s victory has singlehandedly rejuvenated Republican politics in Massachusetts. Our base is energized, and we’ve been winning special elections as if they were a stack of dominos.

You wouldn’t know that as I imagine your conception of Massachusetts is as “The People’s Republic.” Which is true in several areas of the state, but not everywhere, and the only way it changes is if you remove your blinders for a moment and realize that Brown’s voting record, while spotty, is likely representative of the unenrolled voters he needs to win.

BKennedy on October 3, 2011 at 12:08 AM

Pre-Brown Republicans in MA House/Senate: 16/160, 4/40.

Post-Brown Republicans in MA House/Senate: 31/160, 4/40.

Special/Recount Elections won by Republicans: 3 (My Rep, Shaunna O’Connell on a recount for an 18 term incumbent, Peter Durant who won the election and the recount, effective winning twice, and recently Keiko Orrall who picked up a seat a New Bedford Dem resigned from)

Current Republicans in MA House/Senate: 33/160, 4/40.

We still need to break ground on the State Senate, but we’re making gains in the MA House, and the Brown election lit that spark. There’s another special election in 2 weeks. It’s in the Berkshires, but if Jester pulls out a win we’ll have 34 and a solid 4 in a row recounts/special elections won.

It again bears repeating that unenrolled votes make up over 50% of the Massachusetts electorate.

BKennedy on October 3, 2011 at 12:15 AM

So he votes like a Democrat to win in the state, so the state can somehow become more conservative?

sharrukin on October 3, 2011 at 12:14 AM

See post above.

Yes, generally winning a big election tends to mobilize your base, and if you don’t like Scott Brown, the only way you’re going to find a replacement is by having the town and city committees fill the Republican bench with candidates for municipal and later state offices. The MA House of Reps literally doubled the number of Republicans since Brown’s senate win.

Our entire base used to think just like you do. They were defeatist eeyores who had given up hope for The Commonwealth. That attitude is worse than useless – it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Change to a one-party system comes slowly, and as it stands Scott Brown is the Republican with the best chance to win, and his winning a full term further vindicates and energizes the Republican base here.

Scott Brown did get support from the Tea Party, but he did not promise to be a Tea Party Republican. If fact his promise was actually to be an independent voice, as well as to stop Obamacare. Which he technically did as the entire Senate had to do an end-run around his 41st vote and pass the House version rather than whatever slime was going to be added in the Senate version.

Scott has delivered on his actual promises, which has not always been to the benefit of conservatives, but has given him a great shot at making sure the Republicans have enough seats to take the Senate in 2012. I will take a person who does the right thing 70% of the time and takes his job as a representative of the Commonwealth seriously then another mouthpiece for one-party rule.

I have no illusions that Scott Brown is some hyper-conservative or a new Reagan or anything like that. But on the merits of being a Senator, Scott deserves a full term.

BKennedy on October 3, 2011 at 12:25 AM

Or to put it more bluntly:

At this juncture Scott Brown is a means to an end. We have no one who will be able to satisfy conservatives to replace him for the 2012 election, and a primary battle is not conducive to retaining the Senate Seat. Brown *IS* a vote to repeal Obamacare and he *will* in all likelihood be needed to ensure a sizable GOP majority of the Senate.

If he stays in office now and thereby keeps the Republican base active and mobilized in Massachusetts, we will have someone more suitable to replace him in 2018. As it stands however, he is the best we have and by winning a full senate term we do incalculable good for the Republican brand here and keep our own base mobilized.

It’s easy to hate him if you’re outside the borders of Massachusetts. You don’t have any stake whether he wins or loses, and you couldn’t care less about the realities on the ground here. As a Massachusetts voter and resident, and most importantly an active and highly conservative member of the Republican party here, Scott Brown provides, if absolutely nothing more, a stable national presence that shows not only is the Republican party alive in Massachusetts, but it is a viable electoral alternative with candidates that appeal to Massachusetts large unenrolled electorate.

You let us ground troops worry about switching those Us to Rs.

BKennedy on October 3, 2011 at 12:35 AM

It was Scott Brown himself that made the Regan Republican remark. He used the Tea Party, collected plenty of money and work from them and nary a thank you or bye your leave..

kringeesmom on October 3, 2011 at 12:59 AM

Scott Brown’s most successful and powerful ad was actually one where John F. Kennedy morphed into him. That John F. Kennedy appeals to Reagan Democrats is simply an electoral reality, but again, Scott’s biggest image boon was that ad.

And I do recall Brown thanking all his supporters the night he won, and as far as my memory serves he has never said a single bad thing about the Tea Party. His support might have been tepid considering everyone was watching him like a hawk thought the 2010 election cycle, but he’s never referred to us as “extremists” or fanatics or treated the Tea Party like it was diseased.

What’s ironic is that Brown is a bigger Tea Party guy then Charlie Baker was when Baker ran for Governor. Baker ran a terrible campaign in which he focused far too much energy on spoiler and Deval coatholder Tim Cahill while simultaneously avoiding anyone outside our woefully inept state GOP establishment apparatus for support. These establishment folks are pretty much the reason we only had 10% of both houses of the Massachuetts legislature. They were too dumb to even follow Scott Brown’s winning strategy.

So believe me, there’s a lot of work to do, but Brown is at worst a lower order problem that can be dealt with, if necessary, at a later date when his ability to positively impact the party’s fortunes are over. That date hasn’t yet arrived, and we have bigger fish to fry in the state.

BKennedy on October 3, 2011 at 1:10 AM

So yeah, it’s lengthy, but I feel these post covered the issue of MA elections and what Brown means effectively.

A lot of us read HA daily but don’t take the time to check in. I always enjoy Rebar’s and sharrukin’s comments so was surprised to see the myriad negative posts directed at this campaign. I’m supporting Scott Brown again for a couple reasons. Elizabeth Warren runs to the left of any progressive, including Obama. She’s like Van Jones’ long lost sister running for a critical seat, where by chance and by luck ($) the Kennedy element was finally voted out.

A number of Brown’s votes have not been to my liking, which I expected when I supported his first run. BKennedy and swamp yankee have posted pretty thorough lists of why Brown needs to stay and what his presence in the Senate has accomplished. Just the fact that Ocare was pushed through with reconciliation will make it easier to undo. (Imagine Elizabeth Warren seated for those votes.)

It’s understandable that TPX can’t support this race though, because of the basic realities of a MA district, its bluish voters and what one can reasonably achieve. It really is through incremental steps – also great that the statehouses have been energized and filled with new republicans. How is that not a win.

Anyway, Scott Brown did throw a mighty wrench into the Senate calendar and kept several pieces of legislation from moving forward, which made this tea partier very, very happy. Definitely will continue to send in grassroots amounts to help him hold MA.

Giving Elizabeth Warren power in the Senate is nothing short of chilling.

Adrienne, I actually hope he wins. The difference for me was that this man was touted as the Tea Party candidate and mostly conservative. He’s been anything but. A lot of us Hot Air readers were very much talked into supporting his campaign with money and we did. I did twice. I just won’t do that again. There are other real Conservatives in races that deserve the money more than him. Best of luck to him though. I hope you guys pull it off again.

Hawkdriver, completely agree on both points. The more conservative candidates are definitely a priority as far as donations, especially in districts where their vote will make a difference. But MA being what it is, I think an incremental move to more reasonable candidates is a good thing. (Increasing the number of seats statewide is great.) And Scott Brown’s vote in the Senate should continue to help in judicial app’ts and such.

It looks like the professional left on The View decided to take on Scotty today. What a joke! This, from the party that routinely destroys women when politically expedient. I hope female voters keep this in mind at the polls.